Glen Fernandes wrote:
Perhaps, we currently have <memory> broken up into chunks for config-testing as a lot of non-connected things were added for C++11:
BOOST_NO_CXX11_ALLOCATOR BOOST_NO_CXX11_ATOMIC_SMART_PTR BOOST_NO_CXX11_SMART_PTR
But as you've noticed, those don't cover the whole thing. So I guess the question is do you really want a macro for a *fully* conforming <memory> or another test for a new subset?
The latter is preferable; e.g. BOOST_NO_CXX11_ALIGN (or a more appropriate identifier) indicating the absence of std::align. It just felt a little wrong to desire a macro for just one function though.
The above three macros, plus the additional BOOST_NO_CXX11_STD_ALIGN, would cover the whole C++11 <memory> except for the reachability functions (which nobody needs)... and std::addressof, which is pretty useful. Perhaps we need to add BOOST_NO_CXX11_ADDRESSOF while we're at it.